Higher costs at heart of raw milk debate

Oct. 13, 2013

Doneen Hollingsworth

Written by

Lucas Lentsch

Mike Vehle

New government rules nearing adoption could save hundreds of South Dakotans from dangerous diseases — or crush perfectly safe small businesses around South Dakota.

The issue is the sale of raw milk. Some experts say raw milk, which hasn’t had bacteria killed through the pasteurization process, is extremely risky to consume.

“As the state public health agency, we believe very strongly that consumption of raw milk presents a significant risk of food-borne illness,” said Doneen Hollingsworth, secretary of the South Dakota Department of Health.

But many advocates, and some studies, say properly handled raw milk is no more dangerous than the pasteurized variety most people drink — and possibly even healthier.

“Why not let the people choose their foods?” said Gena Parkhurst, a South Dakotan who said a doctor recommended she drink raw milk. “I agree basic minimum standards are needed to ensure a clean milk supply — yet these standards are already in place.”

Raw milk supporters see hostility in rules

South Dakota’s dairy laws have had an exception for raw milk since at least 1955. But as more consumers turn to unpasteurized milk for health or personal reasons, activists have waged a war with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture over new proposed rules governing the sale of raw milk.

Those rules, yet to be adopted, would tighten standards for how much bacteria is permitted in raw milk and require an extensive warning label telling consumers that the product “may contain harmful bacteria” and that pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and people with weak immune systems might be particularly vulnerable.

Dawn Habeck, co-owner of Black Hills Milk in Belle Fourche, said those rules could force raw milk dairies out of business — especially if enforced by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, which she and some activists see as openly hostile to raw milk.

“I do believe they would use these rules to take raw milk out of the picture,” Habeck said.

Lucas Lentsch, secretary of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture, said those rules would end up helping the raw milk industry.

(Page 2 of 3)

“The ag department’s not in the business of shutting producers down, they’re in the business of lifting producers up,” Lentsch said. “With some improved structure, I believe the raw milk industry could very well prosper in South Dakota under rules that give it enhanced consumer confidence.”

New safety standards, Lentsch said, would make customers more comfortable buying the product.

Milk is so potentially dangerous for the same reasons that makes it so healthy.

“We call milk nature’s most perfect food,” said Vikram Mistry, head of the dairy science department at South Dakota State University. “It’s really rich in nutrients that bacteria also thrive on. So with raw milk itself, there is a possibility for transferring pathogens.”

Before pasteurization was widely adopted, outbreaks of disease carried in contaminated milk killed tens of thousands of people. Pasteurizing milk, which kills bacteria by heating the milk briefly above a temperature where bacteria can survive, combined with other reforms to drop milk-related illnesses to almost nothing.

Safer new methods of production

Habeck said it’s true that raw milk used to be very dangerous. But she said modern raw milk producers use much cleaner and safer production methods than the 19th century dairies behind disease outbreaks did, and that today they don’t pose the same risk.

At the root of some of the dispute is a culture clash. Standards such as pasteurization and industrialized production have helped make milk, once among the most dangerous foods, into one of the safest. But many people today say they want a different model — small-scale dairies, treating their cattle humanely and selling their product directly to consumers.

“I know these people, and I know how they operate their farms,” Parkhurst said. “I don’t need a label with a date of filing because I can smell how fresh the milk is.”

If the rules went into place as is, it wouldn’t ban raw milk sales in South Dakota. Even opponents of the rules say it’s possible to make raw milk that complies with the standards. But complying could require big investments that would drive up the cost of the product by several dollars per gallon. Habeck said she and her husband calculated they’d need to have a much larger dairy than their current small-scale operation, which at its peak produced around 100 gallons of milk per day.

(Page 3 of 3)

“If you look at some of the values they’ve put on some of the updated rules ... you can see it’s very hard for people to comply with those without spending half a million dollars ... on a (modern) bottling facility,” Habeck said.

That kind of facility is necessary because of some of the complications involved in producing milk. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls dairy farms “a reservoir for illness-causing germs” and notes that contaminants can come from both cows and humans.

Modern bottling facilities of the kind Habeck thinks would be necessary to comply can reduce many of those risks.

“That is clearly the way to do things perfectly, and we understand that,” she said. “But that’s a pretty big leap for a small family (business) in this day and age where they don’t lend money to people easily.”

Five licensed raw milk dairy producers operate in the state. It’s unclear how many raw milk producers exist who don’t need licenses because they don’t sell their product to the public.

Last week, the Agriculture Department held a public hearing on the proposed new rules.

At some point in November, Lentsch either will approve the rules or suggest changes. Then the rules will go to a legislative committee for approval.

State Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell, voted earlier this year to send a previous version of raw milk rules back for more work. Despite that vote, he said he’s open to what the ag department is trying to do if it can get the process right.

“You need to have some basic standard here,” Vehle said. “If you have a rogue raw milk producer and people get sick, the headline in the paper ... will be, ‘Raw milk causes illness.’ That hurts everyone.”